Opinion
May 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard L. Price, J.).
There was no reasonable view of the evidence to support any justification charge. Defendant sought out his estranged wife and her teenage lover in the early morning hour, under the guise of giving her some documents, and repeatedly banged on her door. He then forced his way into the apartment, told his victims that they were going to die, disarmed the teenager after the latter struck him with a broomstick, and proceeded to repeatedly stab each victim with two steak knifes which he took from the kitchen, even after they were cornered and lay helpless on the bed (People v Collice, 41 N.Y.2d 906; People v Peterson, 205 A.D.2d 456, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 831).
Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's use of the wife's Grand Jury testimony to refresh her recollection regarding the defendant's threat to kill his victims, which was made upon entering the apartment, was not preserved on the grounds asserted for the first time on appeal (People v Peterson, supra, at 456-457), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find, as the People concede, that although the prosecutor should not have read the testimony out loud to the jury (cf., People v Brisbane, 203 A.D.2d 89, 90, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 909), the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, the teenager's testimony regarding the same events, and defendant's acquittal on the attempted murder charges (People v Saez, 69 N.Y.2d 802, 804).
We perceive no abuse of the sentencing court's discretion with respect to the imposition of consecutive sentences on each of the assault charges, since the stabbing of the victims were discrete and separate acts (People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 843). Nor were the sentences excessive (People v Davis, 174 A.D.2d 369, 370, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 966).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.